ribeiro santos - economics and sociology
TRANSCRIPT
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
197
THE ECONOMICS OF HAPPINESS:
AN APPROACH TO PORTUGUESE ECONOMY
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, OBSERVARE- Observatory of Foreign Relations, Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa Lisboa ORCID: 0000-0002-8995-5684 E-mail: [email protected] António Duarte Santos, CARS – Center for Economic Analysis of Social Regulation, Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa Lisboa ORCID: 0000-0002-2773-1829 E-mail: [email protected] Received: March, 2019 1st Revision: August, 2019 Accepted: November, 2019
DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.201/12-4/12
ABSTRACT. One of the major motivational sources humans
have is feeling happy. The issue of Happiness has been studied since Ancient Greece. Recently, though, this has become a research topic in social fields such as Economics. In the past three decades, studies have been made on Happiness in the frameworks of Economics. However, not many of them concerned the Economics of Happiness, since it is a relatively new research field. Thus, our study aims to present a literature review that includes references to the main factors behind the increase of happiness, as well as the relation between economics and happiness. We also offer our own validity analysis methodology in which Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is considered as an indicator of excellence representing the population’s satisfaction level, evidencing the restraints and limitations to national income. We will describe the elements of the Well-Being Index of Portugal for 2004 to 2017 and link them to the country’s position in the World Happiness Index and in the world GDP. Considering that national wealth is one of the elements in the analysis of Happiness, there is a positive relation between the two variables in the referred time span. However, our analysis has led us to discover other variables, more relevant for the analysis of the happiness level and thus the results are debatable.
JEL Classification: D60, I31, E01
Keywords: Economics of Happiness, Gross Domestic Product, World Happiness Index, Portugal Well-being Index
Introduction
All individuals need some degree of stability, some control over space and time
involvement to take advantage of opportunities, avoid inadequate threats and thus be able to
live more calmly. To consider the elements that interact in the economy presupposes attaining
a position based on a rationale in which not everything can be controlled nor is objective, aseptic
or reduced to ordered transactions. This implies that different societies, regions or countries
have multiple variables that may change the course of economic cycles, laws and generational
interaction at any given moment. There are subjective elements in the economy that may lead
to unexpected though rational changes. There is more than one level of satisfaction. Some
Ribeiro, S., & Santos, A. (2019). The economics of happiness: An approach to Portuguese economy. Economics and Sociology, 12(4), 197-212. doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2019/12-4/12
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
198
individuals may aspire to survive, others to satisfy basic needs and others to accumulate wealth.
Different individuals are driven to different things in search of well-being, whether measurable
or not. Therefore, the means to measure this have been the concern of the researchers who aim
to devise new methods to compare the results in different sectors, regions and countries. Yet,
are we happy? Do we lead a happy life? In general, national income has increased. And do we
feel successful? We aim to assess the economics of happiness and apply it to Portugal despite
the difficulties in measuring it and data restraints at the world level.
1. Literature review
Hapiness
Happiness has always been studied, as humans aim to attain contentment in life. Already
in Ancient Greece was this a topic discussed by philosophers such as Democritus (460 AC –
370 AC), known to question the nature of happiness in the Western world. Democritus’s was a
subjective perspective, as the philosopher considered that happiness was not only the result of
a favourable fate or of external circumstances but the result of humans’ way of thinking. Thales
of Miletus starts by defining happiness as associated with a healthy body, a good soul and a
lucky individual. Socrates has a different approach, associating happiness to the soul rather than
to the body, to the well-being of the soul caused by adequate behaviour.
It is noteworthy to stress that in Ancient Greece and in Rome, happiness was linked to
virtue. This link continued through the Middle Ages, faith becoming an increasingly more
important element and happiness being dependent on God rather than on humanity. To attain
happiness you would need to lead a virtuous and devout life; and, in case you did no attain
happiness in this life, the virtuous and religious life would ensure eternal happiness. Flugel
(1925) was the first to conduct empirical research on happiness, daily registering the emotions
of individuals during thirty days. Years later, happiness is being associated to society as a
whole, to the corporate world and to advertising. In 1963, Harvey Ball, a publicist, creates
“smiley”, the yellow smiley face. Research on happiness starts in the 1980s, especially due to
the work developed by Veenhoven (1984), a sociologist. This led to so many studies on
happiness that a database was created, as well as scientific journal, to discuss the topic. In 2000,
the Journal of Happiness Studies was founded, a journal that will include papers from different
scientific fields, such as psychology, sociology and economics. Esterlin (2004) states that, for
many centuries, the topic of happiness was only discussed by philosophers and theologians
who, based on speculations, proposed guidelines for a “good life”. Gianetti (2002) declares that
happiness, in this sense, may be viewed as a synonym of well-being in its widest sense. Both
these authors refer to happiness as being contented with life. They represent momentary
pleasure, objective events, related to the meaning each individual assigns to his or her life. The
individuals assess the changes in the world around them according to their feelings and
emotions. Happiness became a topic of social sciences through psychiatry, which focused on
the opposite of happiness - depression -, viewed as a treatable pathology. More recently, in the
1950s, it becomes a topic of other social sciences, such as Economics. In 1972, Jigme Singye
Wangchuck, the king of Bhutan, introduced this topic in politics. He considered that sustainable
development could only consist in a holistic approach that included both economic progress
and non-economic aspects that influence happiness. He created the term Gross National
Happiness to evidence his intent to open his kingdom to globalization without relinquishing the
Buddhist values of Bhutan. Initially, the concept of Gross National Happiness was based on
four pillars that allowed you to understand the concept: good governance, sustainable
socioeconomic development, cultural preservation and environmental preservation. Currently,
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
199
nine different areas are included: psychological well-being, health, education, use of time,
cultural diversity and its resilience, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity
and resilience and living standards. The Center for Bhutan Studies has developed the Gross
National Happiness Index, an index that allows measuring the well-being of the population and
is at the basis of the country’s political planning. This rationale started being disseminated
worldwide as an alternative to non-economic parameters that allow measuring a nation’s
progress. Therefore, and given the fact that, in the 1980s, inequalities increased, the United
Nations introduced their Human Development Index (HDI) in 1991.
This indicator, created by Mahub ul Haq, a Pakistani economist, and to Amartya Sen,
an Indian economist, awarded he Nobel Prize for Economics in 1998, allows assessing the
human development of a country and understand the complexity of human capabilities in one
number. This allows drawing attention to human well-being. This index is based on three pillars
of human development, namely: long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of
living. “The HDI has three key components: longevity, knowledge and income. Longevity is
measured by life expectancy at birth, the only non adjusted indicator. Knowledge is measured
using two education variables: adult literacy and average years of schooling (...). The third
variable, income (...). (ul Haq, 2003). The concern with the well-being and the happiness of the
population became important, even in Europe. Paxton & Dixon (2004) affirm that the Prime
Minister’s strategic office in the UK provides recommendations to foster the country’s
happiness. David Cameron, former British Prime Minister, in his speech on 22 May 2006,
clearly stated the relevance of happiness by saying that it was time to admit to there being more
to life than money and that it was high time we focused not merely on the GDP but also on the
GWB - the General Well-Being. When he was French President, Nicolas Sarkozy appointed a
team of researchers led by the economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz (2001),
together with Amartya Sen, to study how to measure economic productivity and social progress.
Sarkozy appoints this expert commission coordinated by Jean-Paul Fitoussi, from the
Observatoire français des conjonctures économiques (OFCE).
In 2009, the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report was made public, a document with almost 300
pages that included a theoretical framework and several recommendations “mainly to political
leaders”. In the fight for positive economic results, the report advocates revising the indicators
that determine economic development. Therefore, since 2008 Sarkozy defended he revision of
the parameters used to measure the development of a country and to assess the shortcoming of
one of the most used parameters on development: Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The GDP and its limitations in measuring well-being
The indicator Gross Domestic Product was introduced by economist Simon Kuznets
(1934) within the scope of a report made for the American Congress - National Income (1929-
1932). This indicator would include all economic production by individuals, by companies and
by the State, and whose value might have increased in times of prosperity and decrease at times
of economic crisis. As a result, and in the scope of the Bretton Woods conferences, which, in
1944, founded international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank, as well as rules for monetary relations among independent states, the GDP
became the standard indicator in regards to a country’s economy. However, and as we will
discuss later, many authors, including Abramovitz (1959), Easterlin (1974) and Sen (1970), the
GDP has been questioned as able to measure well-being. In the USA, several other fields of
study started to use this indicator. That is the case of the US Commerce Department, which, in
the 1940s, started to regularly publish GDP estimates based on the methods used by Simon
Kuznets and his estimate of 1929-32 national income. Kuznets’s work was preceded by two
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
200
volumes produced by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and published in the
1920s, which provided estimates of national income throughout the previous decade. Coyle
(2014) points out that, also in the 1920s, the National Industrial Conference Board, which later
became the Conference Board, began publishing a regular estimate of national income. Colin
Clark, a British economist and statistician, was conducting a study similar to that of Kuznets,
measuring the UK aggregated economy.
The definition of GDP, in fact, differs in several aspects regarding well-being. Kuznets,
who developed the concept of the GDP, stated that the well-being of a nation could not easily
be measured as national income (Kuznets, 1934). Two of the major limitations associated to
the definition of the GDP are linked to the fact it does not inform on the distribution of wealth
and does not express how production was carried out at social level. Both situations are
important to quantify society’s well-being, since a country may generate high levels of income
but production may be carried out in very poor working conditions and the wealth generated
may not be equitably distributed. Another limitation is linked to the fact that the GDP does not
include data on the environment, such as climate change and availability of natural resources
caused by overuse of resources due to the increased world production. Dynan and Sheiner
(2018) list the following differences between the GDP and aggregated economic well-being:
1. The GDP excludes most national production and other non-market activities, such as leisure
activities, though most of these activities change actual consumption by families and thus
influence well-being.
2. The GDP represent production in a country but that production may be owned by foreigners.
The well-being of that population, of a country whose companies produce abroad, may be more
correlated with the income they receive for the production regardless of where that production
is carried out (that is the case, for example, of the United States of America).
3. The GDP includes the production that compensates depreciation of physical assets. This
production is carried out to maintain current capital stock instead of increasing services
consumed by families.
4. The GDP includes investment, by companies, the State and families through housing and
consumer durables. Though this investment may supply future services to families, it does not
represent services used by the families. There is some disagreement, though, whether this
investment may be included to assess well-being. Corrado et al., for example, (2017) states that
it well-being does not depend on current consumption but on future consumption which, in turn,
is influenced by current company investment. As we have seen before, the commission created
in France in 2008 indicated the limitations of the GDP as an indicator of economic development
and social progress. Several work groups have been created, which focus on three separate
areas, to analyse issues connected with the GDP, living standards and sustainability. In regards
to the last topic, Stiglitz et al. (2009) recognize the difficulties in measuring sustainability and
state that, in general, it is very difficult to measure sustainability but that solutions must be
designed to do it, even if not perfect. They emphasize the importance of resolving those issues
and finding solutions, even if those solutions are not as perfect as desired. They recommend
that eight different areas in quality of life should be considered, namely:
financial standard of living (income, consumption, wealth);
health;
education;
Personal activities (including work);
Government and political participation;
Social relations
Environment (current and future conditions); and
Insecurity (both personal and economic).
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
201
Based on the work conducted by the Commission on the measurement of economic
performance and social progress, in May 2011, the OECD developed the program Better Life
Initiative. In this scope, the Better Life Index was created considering that “There is more to life
than the cold numbers of GDP and economic statistics”. Many other studies have been conducted
to include more well-being indicators when analysing a country’s economic analysis. Jones &
Klenow (2016) and Bernanke & Olson (2017) have given their contribution by creating a wider
measure of well-being based on economic theory. The authors use a well-being approach
equivalent to that of consumption, combining data on consumption, leisure, inequality and
death rate in one statistical indicator and using an expected utility calculus that applies equal
weight to each individual. They then analyse the differences between this indicator and the GDP
in different times and countries, and they conclude that their alternative indicator implies that
standards of living in Western European countries are much closer to those in the USA because
of longevity, higher leisure consumption and less inequality.
Wolfers (2003), Stevenson & Wolfers (2008), and Sack, Stevenson & Wolfers (2012)
use a different approach to assess well-being through analysing if individuals are happy and
through exploring the so-called “subjective well-being”. Stevenson & Wolfers (2008) supply a
thorough analysis of the subjectivity of well-being throughout time and in different countries
and conclude that such measures are fairly correlated with actual per capita income. Noteworthy
is the fact that Krueger (2008) evidences concern with the differences among respondents in
regards to questions on well-being, and Bond & Lang (2018) express doubts on how questions
and answers on happiness are aggregated, considering that those measures are complementary
and important indicators of well-being based on actual data. Allin & Hand (2017) state that the
GDP is based on a solidly developed theoretical framework, one with a long tradition, which is
(yet) not true about “well-being”.
The economics of happiness
As we have already discussed, happiness, which in Antiquity was studied by philosophy,
is now object of study in many others fields, such as economics, as well as is present in our
daily life. The term Economics, created by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, includes the concept
of happiness. Oikonomique which means science or virtue to adequately use the necessary and
available resources to have a good and happy life. Therefore, Shikida (2009) considers that
Economic Science has an ethical dimension and the link with happiness grounded in history.
According to Graham (2005), psychologists have long used surveys to report happiness. However,
economists have only started conducting studies in this field in the last decades. Lima (2007)
advocates that the use of happiness in economics has been influenced by psychology, mainly by the
development of cognitive psychology, which researches the mental processes behind human
behaviour. From the birth of economic science by Adam Smith, economic theory has been based
on the concept of happiness as it states that more income leads to more usefulness or
satisfaction. In his work, The Wealth of Nations, Smith links income and happiness and refers
that happiness is impossible in a state of poverty. Netto (2014) refers that Adam Smith identifies
happiness as deriving from virtuous life since, according to him, wealth is desired by many
individuals. His ideas evidence a link between happiness and morality. According to Aragão
(2002), the concept that economics is the science of “the wealth of nations” is a false one though
happiness may be public. Both at microeconomic and macroeconomic levels, attaining
satisfaction through maximizing wishes leads to happiness.
Jevons (1871/ 1970), one of the founders of neoclassic economics, is even more direct.
He refers that the objective of economics is maximizing happiness, buying pleasure at the
lowest cost. He affirms that the object of Economics is to maximize happiness through
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
202
acquiring pleasure at the lowest price of pain. Marshall also relates the increase of happiness to
general well-being and states that the increase of wealth leads to an increase of happiness.
Graham (2005) defends that the Economics of Happiness paves the way to wider concepts of
well-being and usefulness, rational and non-rational individual behaviour, as well as
interdependent usefulness functions that allow collecting additional information besides the
pattern preferences established beforehand. Despite all the studies developed by several
economists that include the topic of happiness in their work, and according to Franco (2012),
in 1974, Chenery tried to gather indicators on “development level” able to collect social and
human aspects in economic activities. Noteworthy is the fact that happiness has been considered
as part of economic science only after the United Nations Development Programme, led by
Mahbub ul Haq and Amartya Sen, refer to it in the Human Development Report.
Franco (2012) states that it was only due to the interest shown by economics on
multidisciplinary approaches in regards to development that, in the 1990s, issues on the
meaning of life arose the curiosity of economists on human happiness. According to Niza
(2007), up to 1990, the studies on economics of happiness were a set of isolated contributions.
In 1997, after the publication of three studies by Andrew Oswald, Robert Frank & Yew-Kwang
Ng, and an editorial comment in the Economic Journal by Dixon, this topic gained legitimacy.
Dixon (1997) wrote a note he called Controversy in which he discussed the fact that economists
with different perspectives on economic analysis had discussed happiness and stated that this
topic should have a core place in economic science. The increasing number of publications and
studies on this topic has boosted researchers’ interest, though the 2008 economic crisis and the
interest in understanding and fighting the crisis also played a relevant role in future studies. As
stated before, the then French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, created a commission of renowned
economists aiming to find alternative measures, although still considering the advances already
carried out in terms of development. According to Franco (2012), that commission’s efforts
aimed at satisfying the expectations of the Chief of State and the Chief of Government, who
had created and funded the commission. This commission aimed at focusing on areas different
from those discussed by the World Bank and other institutions. Its members thus concentrated
on already known indicators for economic success, such as the national income and the GDP
and questioned their limitations, and analysis deviations. Aware of the limitations of these
indicators, the commission decided to focus on the topic of happiness, which, up to then, despite
not being a novelty, was not a core topic in Economics.
In this report (Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance
and Social Progress), other indicators are suggested for analysing a country’s economic
situation so as to better portray the population’s well-being. Variables such as health, culture,
employment, social relations, which best represent human satisfaction, were included in
national accounts. The report was, therefore, a starting point for the interest of statistical
analysis, study and research connected with the economics of happiness. The twelve
recommendation presented by the report (pp. 12-18) were:
1. When evaluating material well-being, look at income and consumption rather than
production;
2. Emphasise the household perspective;
3. Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth;
4. Give more prominence to the distribution of income, consumption and wealth;
5. Broaden income measures to non-market activities;
6. Quality of life depends on people’s objective conditions and capabilities. Steps
should be taken to improve measures of people’s health, education, personal activities and
environmental conditions. In particular, substantial effort should be devoted to developing and
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
203
implementing robust, reliable measures of social connections, political voice, and insecurity
that can be shown to predict life satisfaction;
7. Quality-of-life indicators in all the dimensions covered should assess inequalities in
a comprehensive way;
8. Surveys should be designed to assess the links between various quality of-life
domains for each person, and this information should be used when designing policies in
various fields;
9. Statistical offices should provide the information needed to aggregate across quality-
of-life dimensions, allowing the construction of different indexes;
10. Measures of both objective and subjective well-being provide key information about
people’s quality of life. Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture people’s life
evaluations, hedonic experiences and priorities in their own survey;
11. Sustainability assessment requires a well-identified dashboard of indicators. The
distinctive feature of the components of this dashboard should be that they are interpretable as
variations of some underlying “stocks”. A monetary index of sustainability has its place in such
a dashboard but, under the current state of the art, it should remain essentially focused on
economic aspects of sustainability.
12. The environmental aspects of sustainability deserve a separate follow-up based on a
well-chosen set of physical indicators. In particular, there is a need for a clear indicator of our
proximity to dangerous levels of environmental damage (such as associated
with climate change or the depletion of fishing stocks.)
We thus conclude that the report suggests that more emphasis be given to income and
to consumption than to production so as to allow for a more adequate assessment of material
well-being. The relationship between the two concepts: Happiness and Well-being was already
referenced by Easterlin (1974, 1995) at the time of his study, relating economic growth with
well-being, argue that economic growth does not raise well-being.The authors even refer that
our measuring systems focus much more on economic production than on people's well-being.
According to this perspective, the distribution of income becomes more important than the
average per capita income. The study on the relation between economics and happiness has
drawn more interest in economics (Clark et al., 2008; Edwards, 2009; Stutzer & Frey, 2012),
and led to the economics of happiness. In the last three decades, the studies involving happiness
and economics have become a relevant topic, not only due to material progress in the world but also
because some economists question the validity of strictly economic indicators, such as the GDP, to
represent human satisfaction. The correlation between economic factors and happiness has been
made evident and this relation occurs both as micro and macroeconomic levels. Kesebier &
Diener (2008) point out that, in the scope of microeconomics, evidence has shown that higher
levels of happiness are associated to higher productivity and lower levels of absenteeism and
rotation. Several studies have also been conducted in the field of macroeconomics, namely
analysing and evidencing the relation between happiness and several variables, such as the
inflation rate (for example, Wolfers, 2003), the unemployment rate (Di Tella et al., 2001; Frey
& Stutzer, 2000, 2002; Wolfers, 2003) and the differences in income (Fahey & Smyth, 2004;
Hagerty, 2000; Schwarze & Härpfer, 2007). Though many studies have been conducted on
different variables, the importance of the relation between wealth and happiness is undeniable.
Some authors (Diener et al., 2002; Graham et al., 2004) defend that at individual level, high
levels of happiness lead to future higher income. The same analysis is carried out on society as
a whole. However, the GDP is linked with happiness (Diener et al., 2002; Easterlin, 1974; Frey
& Stutzer, 2002a; Graham et al., 2004; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008) and the economic growth
of an economy is linked with happiness (Kenny, 1999). Easterlin (1974) used the empirical data
disseminated by the Gallup Institute for Japan and he USA after WWII and evidenced the lack
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
204
of relation between happiness and income. This relation became known as the “Easterlin
Paradox”.
Gross National Happiness Index
According to Franco (2012), this was a controversial result and influenced the progress
of economic development and the importance of the GDP as a synonym of a measure of
economic success. Though surprising, this result did not lead to an increase in the number of
studies on happiness. That only occurred two decades later. Until that time, the Human
Development Index (HDI) remained the most interesting. The author justifies this by saying
that the studies on happiness became interesting only after 1990 because of the level of material
progress attained worldwide and to the policy makers involved in economic development
having evidenced interest in non-economic topics and stating their interest in the HDI. The HDI
is a composed social well-being index aiming to join relevant aspects of human well-being
aggregate a set of indicators:
- The per capita GDP, PPP. According to van Den Bergh (2009) the per capita GDP
reflects a decreasing marginal usefulness of income through a transformation log and a
maximum income.
- Life expectancy at birth.
- Adult literacy rate.
A shortcoming of the HDI approach is that the selected components and aggregation
process are somewhat arbitrary and does not include environmental sustainability (van Den
Bergh, 2009). For Veiga (2005), the HDI is weak in measuring the development process,
especially if there is need to see the issue of sustainability of a territory. Veiga (2005) also
mentions that the HDI cannot represent the dimensions needed for development, as studied by
Sen & Mendes (2000), which indicate that there is only development (social well-being) when
the benefits of growth are useful to expand human capabilities, i.e., what people can be or do
in their life, in particular in regards to (1) a long and healthy life, (2) education, (3) access to
minimum resources for a decent life, (4) participation in the life of the community, and (5)
freedom to make conscious choices. In 2010, the Gross National Happiness Index (GNH Index)
is published for the first time. The fourth King of Bhutan, who declared it a more important
measure than the GDP and that, from that time onwards, his country’s policy would focus on
the development of the GNH, created this index. This decision was based on Bhutan Law of
1729, which lays down that if the government cannot bring happiness to its people, then there
is no reason for government to exist. The GNH is a multidimensional measure that takes into
consideration periodical samples representative by district, gender, age, urban residence and
income. According to the concept of GNH, happiness is a multidimensional measure, different
from that used in Western civilization and which considers living in harmony with the
environment and collective well-being important. The GNH is a wide and systemic indicator
generated by several indicators that aim to measure nine areas, namely:
Psychological well-being, assessing happiness and satisfaction towards your life;
Health, analysing behaviour patterns, such as physical exercise, sleep patterns and
eating habits;
Education, assessing literacy, as well as involvement in children’s education and values
conveyed;
Time use, measuring how individuals divides their day, which is one of the most
important pillars;
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
205
Cultural diversity and resilience, which assesses participation in cultural events and the
opportunity to develop artistic abilities. Religious, racial or gender discrimination is also
analysed in this item;
Good governance analyses the reflex of government and its public institutions, as well
as the press, the election and legal systems and citizens’ involvement level;
Community vitality, which analyses the sense of welcome, the vitality of relationships,
home and community security, as well as donations and volunteering activities;
Ecological diversity and resilience, which is the item linked with the environment. This
measures the quality of natural resources and access to green areas;
Living standards assesses income, financial security and level of debt, purchase types
and leisure expenditure.
These nine dimensions include 33 indicators and 124 variables. The indicators have
different weight in the GNH calculations. To select the indicators, the following criteria were
used: (a) all indicators must reflect the normative values of the GNH laid down in official
documents, which reflect the normative in the culture and traditions of Bhutan; (b) have
statistical properties and robustness; (c) be able to accurately reflect how happiness varies and
develops in different regions throughout time and among different groups; (d) are relevant for
public action, i.e., be able to explain if governmental policies influence the GNH; and (e) can
be understood by the ordinary citizen. Its encompassing nature makes it a very good index to
assess society’s well-being. We thus conclude that the GNH measures the quality of a country
in a more holistic way than the GDP and considers that development is beneficial to human
society when material and spiritual development occur side by side to complement and
strengthen each individual. The GNH calculus is highly influenced by cultural and religious
aspects of Bhutan, which makes it difficult to adapt to other countries, in particular, to Western
countries. Ura et al (2012) emphasize that culture is seen as more than a resource to establish
identity, it is a means of cushion some of the negative consequences of modernization in Bhutan
through enriching the country spiritually.
An important aspect of the GNH index is the fact that it can analysed in terms of social
group, age, gender or occupation. Analysing it as an aggregated index on environmental
sustainability evidences its weakness. The indicators regarding the environment are based on
the perception that human beings have of how environmental changes can have an impact their
lives and of the impact of wildlife on plantations. The indicators are measured based on
qualitative information on human perception and no data is collected on the field regarding
biological diversity and ecosystem resilience.
Hofstede (2006) states that some have suggested that measuring happiness has been
used as a political tool, and that there has been some concern on research on happiness being
used to promote “authoritarian” objectives. Consequently, some participants at a conference on
happiness that took place in Rome suggested that research on happiness should not be used as
politics but to inform individuals. Oswald (1997) connected happiness and economic growth to
question the validity of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the interest rate and inflation as
direct indicators of improvement in the life a country’s citizens. For this author, the only means
to design adequate social and economic policies is searching happiness patterns in the data
available on countries throughout time. He emphasizes the importance of public policies
focusing on unemployment, an indicator that, for most individuals, represents the unhappiest.
The happiness index measured by the World Happiness Report, calculates that the
majority (75%) of a nation’s happiness is measured based on six variables, the first three having
the most weight:
1. Per capita GDP,
2. Average life expectancy,
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
206
3. Social support,
4. Confidence (in companies and governments),
5. Individual freedom, and
6. Generosity.
The mathematical formula shows that wealth only does not lead to happiness, though it
helps if complemented by other social factors, as we will discuss in the next part of our work.
2. Methodological approach and results
Material wealth in most developed countries has greatly increased in the past decades
and has led to an increase in happiness, though there is not always and cause and effect relation
between the two. As we will discuss later, being riches does not means being happier. As Layard
(2011) affirms: “the poor have become richer, but no happier”, adding that that inequalities in
happiness are more or less stable in most countries. The same causes do not always lead to the
same effects, so we cannot state with all certainty what makes people happy. Nevertheless, and
as Sen refers, the grumpy rich man can be less happy than the contented peasant, but he does
have a higher standard of living.
Despite all the limitations of the GDP, we realize that most countries that have a higher
per capita GDP (fig. 1) are those with a higher level of happiness (fig. 2).
Figure 1. Per capita GDP, current prices, in dollars, 2018
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
207
Figure 2. Level of happiness, measure by the Happiness Index, 2018
According to the World Happiness Report 2018, four of the ten richest countries
(Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland) are also the happiest. Portugal in number 77 on
the list and Southern Sudan, the Central African Republic and Burundi are the least happy
countries.
An approach to the Portuguese reality
Uncertainty has invaded our lives and each individual is both in a global and a local
dimension, which leads to new social organization structures. Today we assess
multidisciplinariness rather than scientific specialization, which is interactive and increasingly
individualistic. Considering the chaotic, conflicting and invisible aspects, we move forward to
an analysis of the Portuguese case.
Given that there is not enough data for the happiness index for the Portuguese case, the
welfare index was studied. As previously presented, Easterlin (1995) and the Report of the
Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, relate the two
concepts, emphasizing the use of welfare mediation associated with the existence of happiness.
Also Oswald (1997) in his study on the relationship of happiness and economic growth
repeatedly refers and studies the concept of well-being, using this variable in the study of the
level of satisfaction with life for European countries.
Veenhoven (2012) argues that “the word 'happiness' is used in various ways. In the
widest sense it is an umbrella term for all that is good. In this meaning it is often used
interchangeably with terms like 'wellbeing' or 'quality of life' and denotes both individual and
social welfare.”
Anand (2016) refers in the 2016 Human Development Report background paper “it is
worth noting that the terms happiness, well-being and quality of life, when used broadly, are
effectively synonymous. When used more specifically, however, their meanings may vary by
context and shift over time”.
Following this, and also similar to what has been done by Clark and Senik (2010), in
studying how economic growth in developing countries influences happiness, which uses the
analysis of various welfare variables, and the same reference made by Hoover (2019), we also
do so in our study.
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
208
According to the Portuguese National Institute of Statistics the Well-being Index is
based on a set of indicators derived from information of an administrative nature and statistical
operations developed in the context of the National Statistical System, the European Statistical
System, among others. This index allows to monitoring the evolution of well-being and social
progress and is structured in two analytical perspectives: Material conditions of life and Quality
of life.
We took into account the small number of observations since the well-being Index for
Portugal dates from 2004. Nevertheless, we decided to apply the following equation to Portugal:
GEBIi = β0 + β1 GDPi + β2 GDPpci + β3 IGi + εi
In which i represents the years 2004 to 2017, i.e., 17 years, and the variables are:
GEBI – general well-being index;
GDP – GDP at constant prices (million Euro);
GDP cp – per capita GDP at constant prices (Euro);
IG – Gini index;
εi – random variable.
Table 1. Results of the estimation model
Explanatory variables Well-Being Index
OLS Coefficient Standardized coefficient (Beta)
Constant 146.356
(17.263)
------
GDPj -0.004
(0.00)
-1.975
PercapitaGDP
IG
0.045
(0.003)
-2.612
(0.247)
2.067
-0.455
F = 221.17
R2 = 0.985
DW = 2,1
Notes: Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations; Significance level 5%.
Own elaboration.
The impact of all the explanatory variables considered in the model was analysed
considering the following indicators: (i) global significance test (test F); (ii) individual
significance test (test t), considering, in both, a 5% level of significance, and (iii) determination
coefficient (R2). For all the variables presented in the table above, the results obtained revealed
their high explanatory capacity, in a model that has no correlation. We used the general well-
being index produced internally, in Portugal, because, despite it having been applied only a
small number of times, it exists for longer than the Happiness Index produced by the World
Happiness Report. As expected, the Gini Index has negative impact on the well-being index.
The Gini Index is an income inequality index that varies between 0 (less concentration, more
equality) and 100 (more concentration and more inequality). Therefore, the higher the income
inequality in a country, the lower the well-being of its population.
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
209
Though the GDP and the per capita GDP have explanatory capacity in the model, the
impact of the GDP in the index is almost null (and slightly negative) and the impact of the per
capita GDP on the global well-being index is positive, i.e., the increase in per capita GDP
increases slightly the general well-being index.
It should be noted that we also estimate a model in which the welfare index was only
related to GDP, and we conclude that this variable when considered separately does not have
any explanatory capacity since the model has no statistical relevance. This confirms the results
obtained in the presented model and in the previously presented studies.
Conclusions
Though new, the scientific field of happiness is prone to become highly influential in
Economics. There are several studies that make it relevant at scientific and political levels. This
study aims to promote and disseminate this new field within Economic Science.
The shift from the GDP to well-being does not mean that the former will be set aside
because the information it is based on continues to be relevant, namely in regards to economic
monitoring. However, this information is not enough for a holistic perspective, thus the need to
collect information on sustainable well-being of the population. Given the relationship between
Happiness and Well-being and given the lack of data, with considerable observations for the
study of the happiness principle, the welfare index was used. After applying our model, we
conclude that the Portuguese GDP alone almost does not have an impact on the well-being
index. Yet, the per capita GDP has a positive effect. As expected, and considering that the Gini
index is higher if the distribution and income inequalities are higher, this variable has a high
negative effect on the general well-being index in Portugal. Noteworthy is the fact that the
model we studied and presented is the most complete. We also analysed the direct relation
between the per capita GDP and the Well-Being Index and that relation evidence no relevancy.
Thus, we concluded what other authors affirm, that the per capita GDP is not, in itself, a good
indicator of happiness, since it only measures the country’s gross income divided by the number
of inhabitants, not weighing their distribution, which would be important to understand what
we consider happiness - the Gini Index.
The main limitation of this study resides in the fact that we did not disaggregate the
composition of the general well-being index. To not present and analyse this disaggregation is
a limitation, as it does not allow us to present a more detailed analysis of that factor. This
analysis would also benefit from a comparison between the index value and other indicators,
for example, the GNH composition. We believe that it would be interesting to consider these
two researches in future studies.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by national funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia - as part of the project OBSERVARE - Ref. UID/CPO/04155/2019.
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
210
References
Abramovitz, M. (1959). The welfare interpretation of secular trends in national income and
product. In M. Abramovitz et al. (Eds.), The Allocation of Economic Resources: Essays
in honor of Bernard Francis Haley. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Allin, P. & Hand, D. J. (2017). From a System of National Accounts to a Process of National
Wellbeing Accounting. International Statistical Review, 355–370
Anand, P. (2016). Happiness, well-being and human development: The case for subjective
measures. Background paper Human Development Report 2016. Aragão, A. (2002). Política de comunhão, Available at
<http://www.paulodetarso310.hpg.ig.com.br/artigo1.html> Retrieved on June 2018.
Bernanke, B. S. & Olson, P. (2017). Are Americans Better Off than They Were a Decade or
Two Ago? in Brookings Big Ideas for America edited by Michael E. O’Hanlon.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Bond, N. & Lang, K. (2018). The Sad Truth about Happiness Scales: Empirical Results. NBER
Working Paper 24853. Clark, A., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. (2008). Relative income, happiness and utility: An explanation
for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), pp. 95-
144.
Clark, A., & Senik, C. (2010). Will GDP growth increase happiness in developing countries?
ffhalshs-00564985v2f
Corrado, C., Fox,K., Goodridge, P., Haskel, J., Jona-Lasinio, C., Sichel, D., & Westlake, S.
(2017). Improving GDP: Demolishing, Repointing, or Extending? Indigo Prize Winning
Entry.
Coyle, D. (2014). GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Diener, E., Lucas, R., Oishi, S., & Suh, E. (2002). Looking up and looking down: Weighting
good and bad information in life satisfaction judgments. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), pp. 437-445.
Di Tella, R., Macculloch, R., & Oswald, A. (2001). Preferences over inflation and
unemployment: Evidence from surveys of happiness. American Economic Review, 91(1),
335-341.
Dixon, H. (1997). Controversy: the source and measurement of technical change. The Economic
Journal, 107(444), 1518-1519.
Dynan, K. & Sheiner, L. (2018). GDP as a Measure of Economic. Well-being Hutchins Center
Working Paper.
Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human Lot? Some empirical
evidence. In: David, Paul A.; Reder Melvin, W. R. (Ed.). Nations and households in
economic growth: essays in honor of Moses Abramowitz. New York: Academic Press.
Esterlin, R. A. (2003). Explaining happiness. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences,
v. 100, p. 11176-11183.
Esterlin, R.A. (2004). The economics of happiness. Daedalus, 133(2), 26-33, Edwards, J. (2009). Joyful economists. Remarks on the history of economics and psychology from
the happiness studies perspective. PhD thesis, Université Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne, Paris.
Fahey, T., & Smyth, E. (2004). Do subjective indicators measure welfare? Evidence from 33
European societies. European Societies, 6(1), 5-27.
Flugel, J. (1925). A quantitative study of feeling and emotion in everyday life. British Journal
of Pyschology, 9, pp. 318-355. Franco, G. H. B. (2012). Índices de Felicidade e desenvolvimento económico. Portugal: Fundação
Calouste Gulbenkian.
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
211
Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, Economy and institutions. The Economic Journal,
110, p. 918-938.
Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2002). The economics of happiness. World Economics, 3, 25-41.
Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What Can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?. Journal
of Economic literature, 40(2), 402-435. Graham, C. (2005). The economics of happiness. World Economics, 6(3), 41-55.
Graham, C., Eggers, A., & Sukhtankar, S. (2004). Does happiness pay? An exploration based
on panel data from Russia. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 53(3), 319-
342.
Gianetti, E. (2002). Felicidade - Diálogos sobre o bem-estar na civilização. São Paulo,
Companhia das Letras.
Hagerty, M. (2000). Social comparisons of income in one's community: Evidence from national
surveys of income and happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4),
746-771.
Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2018). World Happiness Report 2018. New York:
Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Hofstede, G. (2006). What did Globe really measure? Researchers’ mind versus respondents’
minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882-897.
Hoover, M. (2019). The Political Economy of Human Happiness: How Voters’ Choices
Determine the Quality of Life. New Political Science, 41(1), 161-164. Jevons, W. (1970). The theory of political economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books (text first
published in 1871).
Jones, I., & Klenow, P. (2016). Beyond GDP? Welfare across Countries and Time. American
Economic Review, 106(9), 2426-57.
Kenny, C. (1999). Does growth cause happiness, or does happiness cause growth?. Kyklos,
52(1), 3-26.
Kesebier, P., & Diener, E. (2008). In pursuit of happiness. Empirical answers to philosophical
questions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 117-125.
Krueger, A. (2008). Comment on ‘Economic Growth and Well-Being: Reassessing the
Easterlin Paradox’ by Stevenson and Wolfers. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,
Spring.
Kuznets, S. (1934). National Income, 1929-1932. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Layard, Richard. (2011). Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. Fully revised and updated
edition, Penguin Books, England.
Lima, S. V. (2007). Economia e felicidade: um estudo empírico dos determinantes da felicidade
no Brasil. (Master) Dissertation – Faculdade de Economia, Administração e
Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto. Netto, J. D. (2014). Bem-estar Subjetivo: Uma Abordagem Intergeracional Pelo Método De
Pseudopainel. Universidade de São Paulo, Niza, C. F. (2007). Economia da felicidade e política social: contributos da ciência comportamental
para orientação da ação pública com vista ao desenvolvimento humano. Master Dissertation.
Universidade Técnica de Lisboa. Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão. Oswald, A.J. (1997). Happiness and Economic Performance. The Economic Journal, 107(445),
1815-1831
Paxton, W., & Dixton, M. (2004). The state of the nation. Institute for Public Policy Research
PNUD. (2018). Human Development Indices and Indicators 2018 Statistical Update. United
Nations Development Programme
Sack, W., Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2012). The new stylized facts about income and
subjective well-being. Emotion, 12(6), 1181-1187.
Sandra Cristina Ribeiro, António Duarte Santos
ISSN 2071-789X
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO ECONOMICS AND SOCIOLOGY
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019
212
Schwarze, J., & Harpfer, M. (2007). Are people inequality averse, and do they prefer
redistribution by the state? Evidence from German longitudinal data on life satisfaction.
Journal of Socio-Economics, 36, 233-249.
Sen, A. (1970). Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Sen, A., & Mendes, R. (2000). Desenvolvimento como liberdade. São Paulo: Companhia das
Letras. Shikida, P. F. A. (2009). A gente não quer só dinheiro... a gente quer dinheiro e felicidade: notas e
reflexões no contexto da ciência econômica. Revista Ciências Sociais Aplicadas.
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic Growth and Well-Being: Reassessing the
Easterlin Paradox. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.
Stiglitz, J.; Sen, A. & Fitoussi, J.P. (2009). Report of the Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress.
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. (2012) Recent Developments in the Economics of Happiness: A
Selective Overview, Discussion Paper Series, No. 7078.
ul Haq, Mahbub. (2003). The birth of the human development index. Readings in Human
Development, 127-137.
Ura, K., Alkire, S., Zangmo, T., & Wangdi, K. (2012). An extensive analysis of GNH index.
Centre for Bhutan Studies.
van den Bergh, J. (2009). The GDP Paradox. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 117-135.
Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht: Reidel Publ. Co.
Veenhoven, R. (2012). Hapiness: Also known as ‘life-satisfaction’ and ‘subjective well-being’
In: Kenneth C. Land, Alex C. Michalos, and M. Joseph Sirgy (Eds.) Handbook of Social
Indicators and Quality of Life Research. 2012 Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer
Publishers, 63-77.
Veiga, J. E. (2005). Desenvolvimento sustentável: o desafio do século XXI. Rio de Janeiro:
Garamond.
Wolfers, J. (2003). Is business cycle volatility costly? Evidence from surveys of subjective
wellbeing. International Finance, 6(1), 1–26.